Marin Voice: Limiting cameras in court

I DOUBT whether our readers noticed or questioned it, but the Marin IJ newsroom was keenly aware of the lack of photographs of Max Wade being sentenced in court last week.

The reason? Judge Kelly Simmons selected only one news outlet to take photos, and that was the Redwood Bark — the student newspaper at Redwood High School in Larkspur.

Judge Simmons bypassed the Independent Journal and at least a half-dozen other Bay Area news organizations that had filed the required paperwork to take photos in court. Her decision came without explanation, and despite the Bark having missed the deadline for filing photo requests.

Now, the Bark is a great student newspaper, and the IJ has a long history of supporting local high school journalists. In fact, our court reporter advised the Bark photographer on how to fill out the forms needed for access to court the day before the hearing — even suggesting he cite youth and inexperience for missing the deadline. (Apparently that was a good explanation. State court rules require paperwork to be filed at least five court days before the proceeding "unless good cause is shown.")

But cutting out the Marin IJ — which followed every twist in the sensational case that involved the daring theft of a celebrity's sports car and attempted murder — seems an odd choice. The Bark was granted exclusive rights; there wasn't a pool photography requirement as there often is in such cases.

And just as we assisted the Redwood student with the paperwork, our own photographer would have been happy to work alongside him to offer technical tips that would have helped bring his photos up to professional standards. That wasn't possible, because the Bark student was the only photographer allowed in court.

California law gives judges broad discretion over whether and when to allow cameras in the courtroom, but that doesn't mean we have to quietly accept their rulings.

In fact, Simmons made another ruling we disagreed with earlier in the trial.

Back on Oct. 28, when celebrity chef Guy Fieri came to the courthouse to testify about the theft of his yellow Lamborghini, Judge Simmons without explanation not only banned cameras from the courtroom, as is her prerogative, but also from the public hallway outside of court.

Bailiffs ordered TV camera operators to leave and told all other media representatives not to take pictures in the hallway. Longtime courtroom observers couldn't recall a similar instance, and Simmons gave no reason for this unusual step.

Fieri is not exactly a shrinking violet. He's a high-profile TV personality on the Food Network, a best-selling cookbook author, game show host and restaurateur. If he had asked the court to bar cameras, that should have been made public and a hearing should have been held. As it happened, he held an impromptu press conference outside the Hall of Justice after his testimony.

Why does any of this matter?

It matters to us because we take seriously our role not only to cover the news and document the activities in the courts and other public venues, but also to be the public's eyes and ears. We are a Marin County watchdog; we have been for 153 years. Any decision that limits our ability to cover the news is a blow to the public's right to know — in this case, a limitation on public property outside of court and a restriction on professional photography at a significant moment in the prosecution of a major crime.

To be fair, Judge Simmons did grant the IJ photo access at times during the trial. But these other decisions raise questions about the seemingly arbitrary nature of cameras in Marin Superior Court; such decisions are left to individual judges on a case by case basis, with or without hearings or explanations.

I've asked Judge Simmons if she would explain her decisions, but so far I've not received a response.

Robert Sterling is the editor of the Marin Independent Journal. Read his blog at blogs.marinij.com/notesonnews.